Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

119 Mass. 228

Tracy v. Howe

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided December 4, 1875

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1875-12-04

Contract against Charles Howe as principal, and Andrew Riley and Patrick B. Wallace as sureties, upon a bond, dated December 5, 1873, payable to the plaintiff, and conditioned that the defendant Howe should appear at the next December term of the Superior Court at New Bedford, and answer to a complaint made by the plaintiff on her examination on oath before the Municipal Court of Taunton, charging him with being the father of a bastard child of which she was pregnant, and…

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1900

1 state decisions

Relies on McGrath v. Conway

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1875-12-04

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Ames, J.

¶1The difficulty with the defence relied upon is that it contradicts the record of the court. By the terms of the bond, the principal obligor was bound to appear and abide the order of the court. He does not fulfil this obligation by merely entering an appearance and filing an answer, denying the charge against him. He is bound to be in court when the case is in order for trial, and his default, as entered of record, is conclusive proof of the fact that, although solemnly called, he did not appear. In this state of the case, it was impossible that the court could do otherwise than rule that there had been such a breach of the condition of the bond as to authorizes judgment for the plaintiff. McGrath v. Conway, 116 Mass. 360. As this is the only question raised by the defendants, the result must be that their

¶2Exceptions are overruled.

/119/mass/228 · .json · Public domain